[mensetmanusman]

It seems like it would cost X more than $1 in fees to process such a small amount.

[c22]

I operate a service a with an option that charges $1/month. We end up netting about 42 cents per subscription, but really the exercise is more about making the service available to people who might not otherwise be able to afford it than it is about a cash grab.

[thelastgallon]

>really the exercise is more about making the service available to people who might not otherwise be able to afford it than it is about a cash grab.

This is an idea I've been thinking about a while. Can we chat? Email on my profile.

[mensetmanusman]

Are you accounting for the FTE overhead to make sure this works?

[c22]

It's all pretty automated at that level. To be clear, it will likely never pay off the initial cost of implementation, but the volume is low and we can afford it. Also it pays off as a component of our funnel since about 20% of these users end up upgrading at some point.

[westurner]

From https://webmonetization.org/ :

> Web Monetization provides an open, native, efficient, and automatic way to compensate creators, pay for content, and support crucial web infrastructure.

> Why Now?: Until recently, there hasn't been an open, neutral and cost-efficient protocol for transferring money. Interledger provides a simple, interoperable, and currency-agnostic method for the transfer of small amounts of money.

> Web Monetization is being proposed as a W3C standard at the Web Platform Incubator Community Group.

W3C Interledger Protocol works with any type of ledger.

From "Anatomy of an ACH transaction" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36503888 :

> The WebMonetization spec [4] and docs [5] specifies the `monetization` <meta> tag for indicating where supporting browsers can send payments and micropayments:

  <meta
   name="monetization"
   content="$wallet.example.com/alice">